Central Information Commission
Bharat Bhushan Raizada vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited ... on 28 February, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/MTNLT/A/2020/682112
In the matter of:
Bharat Bhushan Raizada
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited
Room No. 510, 5th floor, Khurshid Lal Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi - 110 001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 17/05/2020 CPIO replied on : Not on Record First appeal filed on : 22/06/2020 First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record Second Appeal filed on : 17/08/2020 Date of Hearing : 28/02/2022 Date of Decision : 28/02/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over intra VC Respondent: Pravin Chanani, DGM(Banking) & CPIO, present over intra VC Information Sought:
The appellant has retired on 31/01/2020 under VRS -2019 from MTNL. He has sought the following information related to him:
1. Provide copy of updated GPF Statement.
2. Provide balance of earned leave available upto October 2000.
3. Provide balance of earned leave available upto 31/01/2020.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide any information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that till date no reply has been given to him. He also submitted that on 18.08.2020, the CPIO had uploaded two documents on the RTI portal. Both of the documents were unsigned and did not answer the points raised by him.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply was given to the appellant on 18.08.2020 and the FAA also passed an order on 19.08.2020.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that an appropriate, point-wise reply was given to the appellant on 18.08.2020. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply given except for the delay.
The Commission therefore expresses its displeasure at the conduct of the concerned CPIO for giving such a delayed reply.
With regard to the issue raised by the appellant that the documents which were uploaded on the portal were unsigned, it is noted that when a reply is given through online RTI portal, there is no such requirement of signing the reply.
Decision:
Since an appropriate reply was given to the appellant, no relief can be given. However, the concerned CPIO is advised to strictly follow the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act, failing which the Commission will be constrained to take strict action against him.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) 2 A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3